What is forgiveness and what does it do? Despite many people reading the Bible regularly and closely, they still do not know. Consequently, how can one know when to forgive if they do not know what forgiveness is?
A Christian is not commanded to unconditionally forgive the sins committed against him by someone who is unrepentant for what they have done. God does not forgive the unrepentant, so basic common sense dictates that He would not demand that we do so ourselves. We certainly can forgive the unrepentant if we feel our hearts compelling us to do so (although it seems rather pointless, as they’re going to Hell anyway if they don’t repent of their sin). But mandated by God? Not even remotely the case.
The only thing that is “obvious to anyone who cracks open their Bible” is that this is not an accurate description of reality.
Where is the full disclosure that countless numbers of Anabaptists over the centuries have opened their Bibles, studied them intensely, and decided that Jesus plainly tells them that they must forgive? And that they put it into practice!
Given the words of Jesus, it should be obvious to you, dear reader, that the viewpoint above is not obviously true. There are, in fact, many Christians who have studied their bibles intently and decided that Christ did command us to forgive. Moreover, as we will see below, the focus on repentance and pointlessness of forgiveness is actually an inversion.
See, sins are debts owed to another. The sin-debt can only be held by the victim of the sin. One cannot forgive—release a sin-debt uncollected—another unless one holds the debt of another. I cannot, for example, forgive you for speaking an unkind word against your sister, brother, mother, or father. Such a sin is not against me personally, and so there is nothing for me to forgive, nor do I have any right of justice against that person. The only way I can possibly forgive someone is if they have sinned against me and I, in theory, possess the right of retribution as found in the Law:
An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth
That leads us to some questions. Does the Bible give instructions on how to deal with sin and the resulting sin-debt? Does it tell us what to do with the right of retribution? Indeed it does. But it does so in a curious way: the instructions are not uniform. How you deal with sin—including forgiveness—is dependent on whether or not the perpetrator of sin is your brother or sister in Christ or is a non-Christian. To wit:
And if your brother sins against you, go and…
And so we’ll start there, setting aside for now what happens when a non-Christian sins against you.
If Your Brother Sins…
So let’s crack open our Bibles and give it a cursory reading, shall we?
“And if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault—just between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not hear you, take with you one or two more, so that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word can be established. And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the congregation, and if he also refuses to hear the congregation, let him be to you as the Gentile and the tax collector.
Truly I say to you, whatever you forbid on earth must be already forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth must be already permitted in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they ask, it will be done for them by my Father who is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there in the midst of them.
Then Peter came and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”
Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.
A quick reading of the Bible shows something interesting: excommunication is intimately tied to forgiveness. In order to understand one, you must understand the other. In particular, Jesus only gives one choice: forgiveness and/or excommunication. It is mandatory.
Jesus continued:
“That is why the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his slaves. And when he began to settle them, one slave was brought to him who owed him 10,000 talents. But because he did not have the means to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. Therefore, the slave fell at his feet and bowed down before him, saying, ‘Lord, have patience with me and I will pay you everything.’ And the lord of that slave, being moved with compassion, released him and forgave him the debt. But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves, who owed him 100 denarii, and he laid hold on him, and seizing him, began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’ So his fellow slave fell down and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ But he was unwilling, and went and threw him into prison until he paid what was due. So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved, and came and told to their lord all that had happened. Then having called him in, his lord said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, just as I had mercy on you?’ And his lord was enraged and handed him over to the torturers until he paid back all that was owed.
So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”
Now, recall the statement above:
First, a brother is not going to hell “anyway” because they have refused to repent. That’s now how God’s forgiveness works. A brother or sister—one who has been redeemed by the blood of the lamb—has been washed of their sins, past, present, and future. Your sin-debt has been nailed to the cross. It has already been paid for, that is, forgiven. All of it, for eternity.
All the prophets testify about him, that through his name everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins.
Second, it is mandated by God by you forgive your brothers and sisters in Christ. When Peter asks Jesus how many times he should forgive his Brother, Jesus says uses hyperbolic language to indicate that forgiveness is unlimited. Even if a brother sins against you over and over again—so very clearly unrepentant—you must forgive them. As long as the person who sins against you is your brother or sister in Christ, you must forgive them even if they do not repent. Jesus led by example, asking for forgiveness towards those who had not repented:
And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing.”
Third, salvation—which has already been accomplished by the cross—is generally not a matter of one’s deeds. But there is one exception: if you refuse to forgive your brother, you will not be forgiven by God. Failing to forgive is truly unforgivable.
And his lord was enraged and handed him over to the torturers until he paid back all that was owed. So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.
…Go and tell him his fault…
You must forgive your brother. As long as a person is your brother, you are obligated to forgive them unconditionally. The only way that these commands could relieve you of the responsibility to forgive your brother is if they are no longer your brother any more. And that requires excommunication by the church. To wit:
“And if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault—just between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not hear you, take with you one or two more, so that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word can be established. And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the congregation, and if he also refuses to hear the congregation, let him be to you as the Gentile and the tax collector.
Only the church can excommunicate a brother from the fellowship, and only on the testimony of witnesses. No individual is permitted to refuse forgiveness to a brother by their own determination.
Excommunication is the only legitimate “retribution” for the sin debt of a brother against a brother. But, like the “Rule of Law” principle, it is notably not an individual judgment, but is a matter of the church to weigh. Beyond this limited exercise of the right of retribution, the individual is not permitted to act on the sin-debt. They may “transfer” the individual right of retribution—lex talionis—to the church itself. Whether you call this forgiveness or not, you must give up any and all retributive rights against your brother.
This is precisely what happens when a shooter enters a church or an Amish school and murders those within. Regardless of what the State decides, we, as the body of Christ, forgive and so release our sin-debts and, thus, any rights of lex talionis.
Thus this statement…
…should be…
…because that’s what Jesus plainly stated. Crack open your Bible and read it for yourself. Besides the passages quoted in this article, consider reading from Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 5, 1 Corinthians 6, and Ephesians 5 as well.
…Treat Him Like A Tax Collector
What if you decided not to forgive your brother? What if you took him before the church and the church removed him from the fellowship? Then you are to treat him as one of the heathens, as a non-believer:
If he also refuses to hear the congregation, let him be to you as the Gentile and the tax collector.
Let’s crack open our Bibles and see what it says about heathens who sin against us:
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Think ahead of time how to do what is honorable in the sight of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with all people. Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written,
says the Lord.
If the one who hates you is hungry, give him food to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink, for you will heap burning coals upon his head, and Yahweh will reward you.
Do not repay evil for evil, or insult for insult, but on the contrary, give a blessing, for to this you were called, so that you inherit a blessing. For
And who will harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed;
but in your hearts set the Lord Christ apart as holy. Always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, yet do it with meekness and respect, having a good conscience, so that in a case when you are spoken against, those who revile your good way of life in Christ will be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing what is good, if the will of God should will it, than for doing evil.
“But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will put the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.
Then the King will say to the ones on his right, ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom that has been prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for I was hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me a drink; I was a stranger and you invited me in; naked, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.’
Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and fed you? Or thirsty, and gave you a drink? And when did we see you a stranger, and took you in? Or naked, and clothed you? And when did we see you sick, or in prison, and came to you?’
And the King, answering, will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, in as much as you did it to one of these my brothers, even the least, you did it to me.’ Then he will also say to the ones on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the fire in the age to come, which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you did not give me anything to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite me in; naked, and you did not clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit me.’
Then they will also answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not serve you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly I say to you, in so far as you did not do it to one of these least, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into the punishment in the age to come, but the righteous into life in the age to come.”
Jesus, Paul, Peter, Solomon, and Moses—among the greatest men to ever live—all say the same thing.
We are not to retaliate against those who sin against us, but instead return evil with good. You don’t have to call this forgiveness if you don’t want to, but that’s what forgiveness is: releasing the sin-debt prescribed by the ancient law:
So if a brother has sinned against you, you went through the process of church discipline, you failed to restore them, and the church excommunicated them, then and only then are you permitted to collect on your sin-debt. But that’s only if you reject the higher and better path that the Great Men have described.
Why would you refuse to forgive when to forgive is almost always the superior choice?
If you think forgiveness seems rather pointless, you may want to crack open the Bible and consider why the Great Men implored you to set aside any lex talionis rights against your enemy and, instead, leaving vengeance solely to God where it belongs.
Lex Talionis
In fact, you don’t actually have any right of retribution under lex talionis. That’s exactly what Paul taught. The Jews had misunderstood what Moses had taught when he said:
They thought that this gave them a right of retribution. But Paul corrected this bad assumption:
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Think ahead of time how to do what is honorable in the sight of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with all people. Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written,
says the Lord.
When Moses gave the Mosaic Law that implemented this principle, he was establishing God’s Rule of Law, not the law of personal retributive justice. The power of retribution laid out in the law was given to the magistrate on behalf of God, not to the individual.
Thus, immediately after Paul stated that vengeance belongs to God, in the very next verse, he explained who is supposed to enact lex talionis justice on God’s behalf:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
It’s not you, the individual. You have no retributive right. You don’t have a right of vengeance. When someone sins against you, it is God—not you—who reserves the right to judge.
Your only right is to do good to those who persecute you or sin against you.
The Jews understood that if someone sinned against you, you held their sin-debt. They believed that an eye should be given for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, according to the Law of Moses. They concluded that this meant that they had a right to revenge. Paul corrected this notion. So did Jesus:
Ye have heard that it hath been said,
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
This is God’s right:
This is our responsibility:
In other words, you must forgive. It is another’s repentance, not whether or not you forgive, which is irrelevant to your response.
To refuse to forgive your brother is to seek vengeance, to claim the rights of God himself as if they were your own. It is to claim to be like God. Such blasphemy is why Jesus said that if you refuse to forgive your brother, God will not forgive you. Such blasphemy—seeking vengeance against your brother—is unforgivable. So we must, therefore, reject this claim:
The Dalrockian Manosphere largely does not believe in the validity of repentance and forgiveness, as Dalrock himself demonstrated.
Most Manosphere men cannot accept that the women who have harmed them might share a spot in heaven with them. So understand this: if you fail to forgive your sister for her sins that God has already forgiven, then she will go to heaven, but, God will honor your refusal to forgive her by excluding you from her presence for eternity.
Heaven will be full of sinners of all types: murderers, rapists, slanderers, fornicators, adulterers, liars, and thieves. If you cannot forgive these men and women—including unfaithful ex-wives—who are already forgiven by God, then your desire is fundamentally incompatible with going to heaven. You are not aligned with Christ’s purpose for mankind. And so you will not be participating in it for all eternity. And it will have been your freely made choice. That is what Jesus said:
Do you really think that if you publicly refuse to forgive your brothers and sisters while alive on earth that, after you die, you will suddenly change your mind and want to be with them?
So, take heed. I implore you to forgive.
Ok I don’t always agree with you, even in this article there are things I dont think I agree with, but there is something that deeply sets off my alarm bells about this recent thing of trying to lawyer your way out of forgiving someone, as if we all don’t need forgiveness even for things we might not see as wrong now but will later, or might have forgotten.
Thing is it doesn’t entail being an idiot either, if I know someone is a cheat , deceiver, what have you, doesn’t mean I have to “do business” with them again, but that’s more to do with prudence than justice. Solomon explicitly tells us to watch who we choose to hang out with, men and women. However, I can still forgive them, basically act as if the offense against me personally had never occurred . That’s a totally separate issue. I’m not personally bitter against mad dogs but I’m not letting one in my house.
I mean why wouldn’t you want to forgive, basically, everybody? I’m not saying it’s that simple, especially if the offense is really and truly heinous, but shouldn’t you at least want to want to forgive? (Not a typo, if you have difficulty wanting it you can at least want to want it).
Hoyos,
Welcome and thank you for your comment!
I’m not surprised! I don’t agree with everything I write. I am constantly editing, revising, redacting, and updating the things I have written, including older articles that few are reading. For example, if you thought I was in error, I would reevaluate my claims to see if I agreed and needed to change what I wrote.
I’m not concerned with achieving full agreement with you. Rather, I’m concerned with exclusive claims like “It’s Obvious To Anyone Who Cracks Open Their Bible And Even Cursorily Reads It” when the only thing that is obviously true is that (un)conditional forgiveness is not obvious to everyone who reads the Bible.
Your observations are why I provided these suggested readings in the OP: Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 5, 1 Corinthians 6, and Ephesians 5.
You are right to note that forgiveness is a separate issue from prudence. I need not cling to a right of retribution in order to discern what I should do, nor does forgiveness mean that we ignore sin.
But pay head to what Paul taught:
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people, not at all meaning with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, since then you would have an obligation to go out of the world.
But as it is, I am writing to you not to associate with anyone named as a brother or sister who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler; with such you are not to eat.
For what have I to do with judging those who are outside the church? Aren’t you supposed to judge those who are inside the Church? But those who are outside God judges. Remove the wicked person from among yourselves!
Notice the dichotomy between believers and non-believers. Notice, especially, how judging implies excommunication and does not involve non-believers.
Paul had written a letter prior to 1 Corinthians (which we do not have) where he had instructed them not to associate with immoral people. The Corinthians thought this meant that they were not to associate with non-believers, but Paul was just talking about not associating with immoral believers within the church. After all, you’d have to die or become a hermit in order to avoid any associations with non-believing sinners.
As with Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 18, we are obligated to remove sin from within the church and to expel members who do not repent. But we are not to judge those outside the church, which necessarily includes those who have been expelled. Judgment of non-believers and expelled believers is reserved for God alone. Christians have no authority over non-Christians.
How can you fail to forgive those to whom you are forbidden to judge? And how can you fail to forgive your brother “seventy times seven” even though he repeatedly fail to repent of his sin by sinning against you over and over again?
I agree with you. However, the counter argument, which I don’t agree with, is this:
Forgiving somebody before they repent, removes forgiveness and reconciliation as a possible incentive for them to repent later. You’re actually putting them in more danger of eternal damnation by forgiving the unrepentant person. By making them think the matter is already properly settled. Biblical repentance isn’t just words either, it is a demonstrated change. Saying that you’re sorry (because you got caught) isn’t repentance if you might do the same thing again if you got the chance. True repentance includes realizing your due penalty, and seeking to make restitution, if possible, like how Zacchaeus vowed to pay back fourfold anything he had wrongly charged people, in accordance with the Jewish law’s penalty for stealing. If you’re still trying to justify your behavior, you’re unrepentant.
I know of a couple of apocryphal additions to the New Testament that support this misguided crime-abetting view of forgiveness. The key is to notice that those servants of Satan who wickedly added to God’s words, are clearly pushing this repentance-free forgiveness. Jesus’ and John the Baptist both preached repentance. Most of God’s prophets called for repentance. The Gospel is that forgiveness is available for those who truly repent and call upon the name of Jesus, who gave His life as a sacrifice for our wickedness.
I’m sure you can see the problems with this argument.
Peace,
DR
So if a brother has sinned against you, you went through the process of church discipline, you failed to restore them, and the church excommunicated them, then and only then are you permitted to collect on your sin-debt. But that’s only if you reject the higher and better path that the Great Men have described.
Why would you refuse to forgive when to forgive is almost always the superior choice?
If you think forgiveness seems rather pointless, you may want to crack open the Bible and consider why the Great Men implored you to set aside any lex talionis rights against your enemy and, instead, leaving vengeance solely to God where it belongs.
SEE where Derek ”gets” the GREAT MEN?
Sort of like one Gaikokumaniakku did back in April 2014.
https://vultureofcritique.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/greatbooksformen-versus-dalrock/
I initially thought that GBFM wrote badly because he wasn’t capable of writing clearly.
Later on, I changed my mind. I thought that GBFM was an older man, perhaps 50 years old, who was intentionally dumbing down his words in order to appeal to the younger generation.
Now, I think GBFM has a cunning plan, perhaps rooted in years of teaching experience: I think GBFM intentionally tries to write his compositions as little coded riddles. This is meant to engage the student by giving him an intellectually satisfying code-breaking exercise. The student has to think about the problem in order to receive the communication, and thus GBFM’s message only gets to the intellectually active students.
E.g.:
“Women have been bernankified.”
Who is Bernanke? He is the guy who devalues Federal Reserve Notes.
So – women have been reduced in value? Women have been devalued? The “marriage market” is broken?
E.g.:
“Women have been butthexed.”
“Buttsex” is a common slang for penile-anal intercourse. “Hex” is a curse that might ruin your life.
Thus – women’s lives have been ruined because these women have received penile-anal intercourse.
Generally I don’t pay attention to this kind of wordplay, particularly because it takes up precious time that I need to read Plato. GBFM claims that he endorses the study of Plato, but I have yet to see him expend 2000 words of space on the difficulties of interpreting the Timaeus.
GBFM has recently assailed one of my opponents – Dalrock – as being less Christian than one of the people I hold in contempt – Roosh.
GBFM wrote:
Roosh is a Greater Christian than Dalrock, as like JEsus, ROOSH speaks da truth which sets ye free, while Dalrock teaches dat Jesus came to abolish the LAw of Moses, so that ye would be enslaved to a world ruled by butt and ginzgagag tingzlzlzlzozozozoz. For Dalrockasz Has all DA SOLUTIONZ for menz!! DO NOT READ SHAKEPERARE HOMER MOSES JESUS SOCRTATES! BUT JUST MAN UP AND BE A CLOWNZ FOR DA MODERNZ WOMENZ AND PLEASE HER EVERY TINZGLZZOOZOZ!
While Dalrockasz da Churchian teaches and preaches that men must learn game so as to become clowns for womenz serving every butt and gina tinzgzlzlzozo, Roosh (who would be kicked out of da dalorkcian chruchz) is catching on.
GBFM then went on to quote Roosh:
Men Are Nothing More Than Clowns To The Modern Woman
When I look at myself in the mirror, I don’t see a man who has improved himself over the years to be the best that his genes allow—I see a glittery skirt that a girl encounters in the mall. Is the skirt too expensive or is it on sale? Is there only one left of her size or is the rack full of them? Does she already have something similar or is it totally novel? Does her friends think it’s cute or just alright? After trying it on, does it flatter her body or make her look fat? Either she makes the impulsive decision to buy the skirt or not, because odds are she won’t come back for it. There are so many stores with so many skirts that she will soon forget it, forever. We are like glittery pieces of fashion to women—items that she truly doesn’t need. Not only has she already collected so many of them, but she can easily obtain more within walking distance from where she lives. She can even browse online from home while in her pajamas through a nearly unlimited selection.
We are not men in the traditional sense—we are clowns. With our tight game we have to be entertainers who create drama and excitement in a girl’s life, just long enough so that she spreads her legs and makes sexy noises, and even though she did commit such an intimate act with us, she will soon lose interest or simply get bored, and then move on to the next shiny cock that catches her eye.
Roosh can indeed resign himself to being a clown (but as I say that, I must apologize for insulting clowns, many of whom are hard-working lower-class folks just trying to survive in show business). The rest of us have better things to do with our lives than bang sluts.
So, here’s my cunning plan.
Rather than parse through GBFM’s word-puzzles, extract the intended messages, and criticize them, I’m just going to post brief notes on other topics, and every now and again, I’ll write a serious post about Plato.
I believe that Roosh once wrote that he was a slave to his penis. I am not going to expend the time necessary to verify the reference; I will merely point to the philosophers, from Buddha to Publius Syrus, who have taught mortals how to avoid being enslaved to the passions.
You pays your money and you takes your choice.
Conclusion
Does GBFM have some cunning plan/word puzzles, or is he just following the Spirit that has guided the GREAT MEN throughout HISTORY?
& to make people think even more:https://gospelway.com/invitations/great-men.php
How great were famous people of history? Were their lives really successful? How does God’s standard of greatness compare to man’s standard?
The world measures greatness by a standard completely different from that which God uses. Consider four men whom the world considers to be among the greatest men who ever lived.*
Four Great Men
Alexander the Great
Considered by many to be the greatest military leader to have ever lived, Alexander conquered essentially every civilized nation in his day. At the end, he wept that there was no one else for him to conquer. He set a city on fire and died in a drunken spree.
Hannibal
To the astonishment of Rome, Hannibal crossed the Alps and put to flight the armies of Rome. His people praised him like a god. But in the end, he fled from his country, hated by the very people who had exalted him. He committed suicide by poisoning himself in a foreign land.
Julius Caesar
Caesar conquered eight hundred cities and pursued to death the only serious rival he had on earth. But in the end, he was assassinated by those he considered his nearest friends.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon conquered Europe. The earth trembled at his name. Kings and popes obeyed him. But in the end, he died in lonely banishment where he could sometimes see his country’s flag, yet he was essentially exiled from the world.
Here were four of the most famous men in history. Their names are known to almost everyone. Most people would say they were incredibly successful. Yet one died as a suicide, one was murdered by his friends, one died in lonely exile, and the other died in a drunken spree.
God’s Measure of Greatness
God does not measure greatness by earthly wealth, fame, or power.
Luke 16:15 – For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
Ecclesiastes 2:11 – Solomon said: I looked on all the works that my hands had done and on the labor in which I had toiled; and indeed all was vanity and grasping for the wind. There was no profit under the sun.
Matthew 16:26 – For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
God’s word reveals the true measure of a successful life.
Matthew 20:25-28 – Jesus said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.”
Matthew 6: 33 – But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
James 1:12 – Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.
Christians are rarely considered to be great in the eyes of the world. We may be ridiculed and even persecuted. Yet in the end, every one of us can receive a reward greater than anything achieved by the greatest men of history.
Ecclesiastes 12:13 – Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is man’s all.
NOW see why Derek said
”So, take heed. I implore you to forgive and follow the Spirit that has guided the GREAT MEN throughout HISTORY -as GBFM predicted in ’14 that Roosh would also one day follow fully – & finally, Roosh did in 2019.”
Exit Q: Why does the ”Christian manosphere” hold Roosh as ”good” when he has repuated and forsaken GAME=”redpill” and the manosphere as a whole?
“… if you refuse to forgive your brother, you will not be forgiven by God. Failing to forgive is truly unforgivable.”
I wonder how much time and effort has been wasted in argument over unforgivable sin, but I seem to have missed this concept in everything I’ve ever heard on the topic. If only I had known. 🤔
OKRickety,
There is a teaching in scripture where a sin is explicitly described as unforgivable, found in the three parallel passages of Mark 3:28-29, Luke 12:10, and here:
If there is just one sin that won’t be forgiven, then when Jesus says that you won’t be forgiven elsewhere…
…what else could he be referring to?
Literally everything other transgression, including blaspheming Jesus himself, will be forgiven. The only unforgivable sin is blaspheming the Holy Spirit, so rejecting forgiveness must be an example of this. To deny forgiveness to a brother or sister is to deny the power of God to save them, to deny the power of—to speak against; blaspheme—the Holy Spirit.
How can you fail to forgive someone to whom God has already forgiven? Did you catch that verse sitting right there in midst of Jesus’ instructions on discipline, excommunication, and forgiveness:
So, if you deny the power of God to save, how can you be saved yourself? It is impossible to deny the very thing you try to claim. Jesus made it abundantly clear that to fail to forgive is unforgivable (in at least a limited sense)…
…but nothing is to prevent a man from choosing to forgive. He need not cling to his failure to forgive. At any point he can choose to forgive, to hold others (and thus himself) to a new standard. He can, in short, repent.
This why I often implore others to forgive and not to judge. I desire them to save their souls before it is too late to make the choice.
The REV Bible commentary says this:
…
Although some people are frightened that because of the sins they have committed they might not be able to be saved, the scriptural evidence is that if a person wants to be saved, or is concerned about not being saved, then they have not committed the unforgivable sin.
…
The unforgivable sin can be committed by believing and saying in your heart that Satan or one of the forms he hides behind and supports is the true sustainer, provider, or object of supreme value in one’s life.
…
Some people who have greatly sinned or been very angry with God are afraid they have committed the unforgivable sin, so it is worth repeating that if a person desires to repent and follow Jesus then they have not committed that sin.
To take the position that God’s forgiveness is not valid is to place another above God, whether it is one’s self as the ultimate judge or another (such as Satan or some human leader). If you don’t believe in forgiveness, then you don’t want to be saved. It really is that straightforward.
There is nothing unjust here. If a person has rejected forgiveness, then they get exactly what they deserve, what they actually want. Nothing more, nothing less.
Peace,
DR
OKRickety,
What I’m talking about is adjacent to the normal discussion of this topic. It is a different perspective, but not incompatible. Like this Venn Diagram:
I can demonstrate this. Let’s look at a sizable selection of the top 40 Google results for the “Unforgivable Sin” and see how they compare with what I’ve written.
It’s one thing to suppose that Jesus is out of his mind (his family fears as much at this early stage, Mark 3:21), but it’s another thing to attribute the work of God’s Spirit to the devil — to observe the power of God unfolding in and through this man Jesus, be haunted by it in a callous heart, and turn to delude others by ascribing the Spirit’s work to Satan. This evidences such a profound hardness of heart in these scribes that they should fear they are on the brink of eternal ruin — if it’s not already too late. Jesus does not necessarily declare that the scribes are already condemned, but he warns them gravely of their precarious position.
There is a person who comments here regularly for which two things apply:
Jesus said that the failure to forgive will not be forgiven, and so this must be an unforgivable sin. Jesus also forbid judging, lest one be judged by the same standard by which they judge others.
…and…
…and…
First, it’s not even an unforgivable sin. The text talks about a sin that will not be forgiven. Not one that can’t be.
Second, this is not the only sin that will not be forgiven. Jesus says many times that if you do not forgive others, you will not be forgiven.
Third, it’s explicitly not what was said about Jesus! “All manner of blasphemy against the Son of Man will be forgiven.” He’s contrasting two things, and “calling Jesus demon possessed” is explicitly in the “will be forgiven” category.
Yet Jesus does not randomly change topics. He says things because they’re relevant. Something in this scene is not to be forgiven, and it’s not what was said. It’s the heart that led to it being said.
I’ll simply note that to fail to forgive is in the category of the status of “the heart that led to it.” It is an example of an unredeemed hard heart.
The only unpardonable sin today is that of continued unbelief.
…
God has provided for our salvation in His Son (John 3:16). Forgiveness is found exclusively in Jesus (John 14:6). To reject the only Savior is to be left with no means of salvation; to reject the only pardon is, obviously, unpardonable.
Thus, to deny forgiveness is to live in unbelief of the power of the Holy Spirit to save. As I said above, it is fairly obvious that if you deny the power of forgiveness, you can’t then claim that the power is real and applies to you. Jesus made very clear that you are held to the standard that you judge others by, not the standard by which you judge yourself.
One study Bible explains it as follows: “To commit this sin one must consciously, persistently, deliberately, and maliciously reject the testimony of the Spirit to the deity and saving power of the Lord Jesus.” If a person keeps doing that until death, there is no hope of forgiveness and eternal life in heaven.
To withhold forgiveness is to deny the saving power of the Lord Jesus, and so long as someone persists in that, they have no hope of forgiveness or eternal life in heaven.
If you were there, and you saw it, and you heard it, and your final conclusion was, “He’s demonic,” you’re damned; you can’t be saved, because that’s your ultimate conclusion with full revelation.
So, this is unique to those people who had that full revelation. What about today? Could somebody commit this? Right, they could. Look, we’ve all been forgiven for rejecting Christ, haven’t we? We’ve all been forgiven for rejecting Christ because we weren’t born saved. So, we’ve all been forgiven for that. But the one that won’t be forgiven is the one called the apostate who gets full exposure to the truth, full exposure to the Gospel, full revelation, and makes the final conclusion, “It’s not true; I reject Christ. It’s a deception.” That’s where you end up after full exposure; that’s what’s called apostasy. That’s unforgivable.
Again, fundamentally, the unforgivable sin is a rejection of Christ. If you deny the power of forgiveness, you are denying Christ. And if you do so having read the instructions to forgive and not to judge, but reject it anyway, what excuse do you have?
There is a narrow view that is certain and clear in the context of the Matthew and Mark passages. It is where the Holy Spirit has made a man conscious of the truth of Christ and the Gospel, but they knowingly rejected the Son of God, especially to deter others from following Him.
By denying forgiveness to a brother or sister, you are deterring them from fellowship with Christ. This is precisely what happens when you tell a brother or sister that they are a servant of Satan and refuse to offer them forgiveness.
Rather, as stated before, blasphemy against the Spirit is ongoing hardening of your heart against the Holy Spirit who is trying to lead you to repent of sin and believe in Christ. It is an issue of the heart that manifests in one’s words (and actions). Someone who hardens his or her heart against the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit and who refuses to repent of sin and turn to Christ in faith has committed a sin that never can be forgiven. The person who repeatedly and without repentance rejects the Holy Spirit’s testimony to Christ is the one who has blasphemed the Holy Spirit. That sin is the only sin that never will be forgiven.
What do most of these have in common? With a person denying themselves the saving power of Christ. But what Jesus makes clear is that to deny another person the saving power of Christ, you must also deny yourself that same power: for the standard in which you judge others, you will be judged by that same standard.
So, then, we can see that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is attributing Jesus’s power to Satan, and it’s unforgivable because “that type of slander reveals a hardened heart that has ultimately and finally rejected the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, work which should lead to repentance.”
It takes a hard heart to deny forgiveness to yourself, and it takes a hard heart to deny forgiveness to another. Most of the online references focus on the former, but the latter is just as serious.
Let’s rattle off a few others:
The spirit of blasphemy, therefore, is, when a man audaciously, and of set purpose, rushes forth to insult his divine name. — John Calvin
The Spirit’s message is God’s final revelation to us; so if we speak against it or reject it, we speak against and reject the Holy Spirit. And as long as we continue to do that, we will not receive forgiveness, but will be lost in sin. — Church of Christ, Fairview Park
Decisively reject clear truth the Spirit revealed about Jesus by attributing his mighty works to Satan. — The Gospel Coalition
That deliberate refusal to believe, even though knowing the truth, seems to be what Jesus called the unforgivable sin. — Rick Cornish
Blasphemy against the Spirit evidently is not just a one-time offense; rather, it is an ongoing attitude of rebellion – a stubborn way of life that continually resists, rejects and insults the Holy Spirit. This is what makes it, in effect, an eternal sin (Mark 3:29). Blasphemy against the Spirit is not unforgivable because of something done unintentionally in the past, but because of something being done deliberately and unrelentingly in the present. — Quest Study Bible
Their words represented a hardened attitude and an embittered and impenitent heart. This blasphemous, hardened unbelief, is a chosen state of living which is what makes it unforgivable. — Crosswalk
These are, IMO, more-or-less restatements of the others.
Peace,
DR
There is nothing unjust here. If a person has rejected forgiveness, then they get exactly what they deserve, what they actually want. Nothing more, nothing less.
Derek,
Do you have anything to say about the following argument?:
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-person-knowingly-reject-Jesus-Christ
It doesn’t make sense does it?
Why would God care whether you believe? If He had a personal interest in you, He might care that you are a good person, help others, don’t commit crimes, etc. But whether you believe He exists or not does not affect you, Him, or anyone else at all. Being a good person is where the real hard work is. Is He really going to focus on a small technicality like that and ignore all the good you do in life? Does the punishment fit the crime? I have doubts thus I should suffer for all eternity, WTF? That does not sound like justice to me, is God unjust?
But let’s say He needs His ego rubbed and He wants people to worship Him. Ok, then why hide? why not just show up and settle all doubts once and for all? Why does He need intermediaries to talk to us? Why allow people to make up and worship false gods? For us here on earth there is no way to tell which religion is the true one, every single one claims to be the true religion. Surely, for an omnipotent God, clearing all doubt would be a trivial thing to do.
What is the point of sending someone to hell for eternity? is it to teach them a lesson? If it is a lesson, then you would think at some point you would be let out to see if you learned. There is no point in teaching you a lesson if you will never have the chance to apply it. If I was to lock my kid in a room and throw away the key, well, that is just giving up on my kid and forgetting about him, and quite honestly I would be a scumbag. Dumping you in hell for eternity would be the act of a hateful father figure.
Who is actually telling you that you need to believe in God or go to hell? it may be your parents, but who told them? Ultimately it is the church. If I was a religious leader, that would be in my best interest wouldn’t it? If people feel guilty about having doubt, they would flock to me in search of faith. They will donate money to my church, they will come every Sunday to hear me speak. They will teach their children to follow me. I would be saying the same thing: having doubt in God makes you evil and you will be punished, but fear not for I can help you be good.
I hear you say “Ohhh, but it is not the church, it is the bible, the church is just following the teachings in the bible”. Ok, fair enough, but where did the bible come from? It wasn’t handed down by a giant hand coming from the sky. There were a bunch of texts scattered and written by multiple people, the church got together, cherry-picked a few of them, edited them into a single document, and declared it sacred. If I was a religious leader putting a sacred text together, the very first thing I would make sure it has is a little “You must believe in God, or you are bad and will suffer, and by the way my church represents God”
“believe in God or go to hell” makes perfect sense if it was written by men. It makes no sense if it actually came from God.
I’ve heard characters on TV shows like Meathead Mike Stivic on ”All in the Family” to a few people in my life make the same case, ESPECIALLY this part”“believe in God or go to hell” makes perfect sense if it was written by men. ”-which was MOST of Meathead Mike Stivic on ”All in the Family” argument on the episode i saw of him arguing with Archie Bunker.
Professor,
What you provided is an all-star team of typical athiest objections. I could go into why most of them are downright silly, but I don’t think I will this time. Instead, I want to focus just on what I said:
I said this because I understand that the result of the unforgivable sin is not a punishment, per se, it is a just reward. God is giving men exactly what they want. They had the choice to accept what Jesus Christ offered on its own terms, and they chose not to opt-in.
The problem with…
…is that it presumes a negative understanding of what Christ had to offer. Christ didn’t come to send people to hell (negatively defined; opt-out), he came to offer people life (positively defined; opt-in). When people go to hell, it is largely because they have made that choice. Knowing fully what Jesus Christ came to do, they decide they do not like what he has to offer.
In short, they are not in union with Christ and his purpose.
The refusal to forgive is one form that this takes: they don’t like that God offers his grace and mercy to people that they personally do not like (e.g. ex-wives and other women).
…or…
…or…
I think that certain commenters would have difficulty imagining spending eternity with you and I or vicious/vindictive ex-wives, though heaven will be populated with many murderers, adulterers, rapists, liars, and theives. This is probably why we are all labeled as servants of Satan. It makes it easier to deny us forgiveness and salvation.
Who chooses to go to heaven—and who chooses not to—is dependent on what people believe, not on what people do.
I’ll conclude with this:
Modern man reads 1 Peter and the promises that Peter made about the future life to come in response to the suffering here-and-now and this does not resonate with most men. They don’t want their problems to be solved in the life-to-come, they want them solved now. And they’ll do whatever it takes to make that happen.
See here, here, and especially here and here. I’ve also described it in “On Suffering.”
Peace,
DR
Pingback: On Forgiveness, Part 2 - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: On Forgiveness, Part 3 - Derek L. Ramsey